Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bishamber Dayal& Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 4 September, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 11522 of 2013. [O&M]
Date of Decision:04th September, 2013.
Bishamber Dayal& Ors. Petitioners through
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for HUDA.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP No. 11522, 11698, 13847, 13868, 13942, 13970-73 of 2013 as common question of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 11522 of 2013.
The petitioners are aggrieved by notifications dated 21.05.2010 and 20.05.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby their small sized vacant plots have been acquired for development of residential and commercial Sector roads, green belt in Sector 10, Dabwali, District Sirsa.
The grievance of the petitioners is that while adjoining properties were released on pick and choose basis, the yard-stick applied in their case is totally irrational.
Reply/affidavits have been filed by the respondents, inter- alia, maintaining that the subject land is required for the notified Gupta Dinesh 2013.09.18 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Hihg Court Chandigarh public purpose. It is maintained that the acquired plots are lying vacant, hence the petitioners can not take benefit of the Government policy dated 26.10.2007 or of the release orders passed in respect of 'constructed properties'.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is not in dispute that some of the properties have since been released from acquisition. The question that arises for consideration is whether the vacant plots of petitioners can still be utilised for the notified or any other bona-fide public purpose? If the authorities on re-survey of the area form an opinion that the plots owned by the petitioners are still needed for a public purpose, they may reject the petitioners' claim but in that event, the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of Government policy notified on 09.11.2010. However, if the authorities are of the view that the 'public purpose' can be achieved even after releasing the plots of the petitioners, let appropriate orders be passed within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
Disposed of. Dasti.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
September 04, 2013. ( SURINDER GUPTA )
dinesh JUDGE
Gupta Dinesh
2013.09.18 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Hihg Court Chandigarh